My "abstract" obviously is not a fake.  Who would fake that?  <G>


Dan Matyola
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Igor PDML-StR <pdml...@komkon.org> wrote:

>
>
> Oops.. Sorry, by mistake, I posted it as a reply to a wrong thread.
>
> Igor
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2018, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Finally, I've watched (most of) the video, and these "experts" are also
>> full of ... smoke.
>>
>> One of the guys mentioned the issue noted by Mark (albeit not as clearly
>> formulated as Mark's), - the clouds behind the moon. But it was
>> practically dismissed by others.
>>
>> They were mumbling about the sunset, saying it would be possible to get
>> this light and this color, and one guy bragged about making his living
>> from the twilight photographs. - But until almost the end, nobody thought
>> that it would be non-physical to have red sunset colors (backlit) next to
>> the moon, that is opposite to the sun during the full (or almost full) moon.
>> (Just in case it is not obvious: the moon is full when the sun, which is
>> the source of the light is on the opposite site, i.e. behind you, as you
>> are looking at the moon. And I haven't seen a sunset when the eastern
>> portion of the sky is red like this.)
>>
>> What's funny is that I googled images for moon and sunset, - to see how
>> my physics-based argument holds against photos. To my surprise, I've found
>> some images where the moon is superimposed over the sunset (or sunrise)
>> sky. And those are clearly fake.
>> Here is just one example (referenced as a photo by Castillo, -
>> the link to the original photo is dead):
>> http://planetearthandhumanity.blogspot.com/2013/07/our-moon-
>> at-sunset.html
>>
>> That's clearly a fake!
>>
>> While, it is beyond any doubt to me that the original photo in question
>> could not be done in a single shot, - I was curious if the angular sizes
>> (the size of the rock or tree vs. the size of the moon) are compatible to
>> be in the same shot in general. I have a feeling, - they are not.
>> (You'd have to be too far away from the rock and the tree to see them at
>> this small angular size, - to be able to photograph them with this much of
>> detail.)
>> But I am too lazy to do a careful geometrical consideration at the moment.
>>
>> But I have a big physics(astronomy)-based concern about yet another Peter
>> Lik's photo... -I 'll send a separate message about that.
>>
>> Igor
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 4 Feb 2018, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Nothing to write home about. .. err. to PDML. ;)
>>>
>>> Here are some examples of what came out:
>>> http://42graphy.org/misc/2018-01-31-eclipse/
>>>
>>>
>>> Igor
>>>
>>>
>>> Daniel J. Matyola Fri, 02 Feb 2018 10:13:47 -0800 wrote:
>>>
>>> Did you get anything interesting?
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Reply via email to